[QUOTE=3.14159;238032]I don't need your meaningless sarcasm..[/QUOTE]

You'll get that about the same time you stop making ridiculous comments. :lol:

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;238069]You'll get that about the same time you stop making ridiculous comments. :lol:[/QUOTE]

How was it ridiculous? Oh, wait, you're obviously infallible. :rolleyes:

If you have nothing to add but smart-assed comments, just take a hike. Go kick some rocks. [B]Get lost.[/B]

-------------------------------------------------------------

And, the split I was waiting for;

[code]starting SIQS on c95: 46841064479706362242009239768661696640259680130429637064776609553939726832118289550545198006023

==== sieving in progress ( 4 threads): 84528 relations needed ====
==== Press ctrl-c to abort and save state ====
85338 rels found: 21435 full + 63903 from 1174005 partial, (473.94 rels/sec)

SIQS elapsed time = 2587.6930 seconds.


***factors found***

PRP48 = 987044774093075878551222112255952559665853921239
PRP47 = 47455865943614596177273605697112936809372568657[/code]

(The timing isn't too accurate; The total time should have been somewhere around 55-65 minutes.)

Okay; Now I see the problem with the crashing; I'm supposed to use 64-bit YAFU for large factoring jobs.

P.S: My factors! They're there! :smile:

[code]starting SIQS on c102: 598913786496676879646847684910753405454458067319718781528903247886083067885539845621954730905822163869

==== sieving in progress ( 4 threads): 123064 relations needed ====
==== Press ctrl-c to abort and save state ====


SIQS elapsed time = 136.5740 seconds.


***factors found***

PRP51 = 948235779757086528363084445862876675364034142714669
PRP51 = 631608508434582689071389212392863397901302351306801[/code]

.. Setting me a new record.

A C102 factored with yafu in SIQS-mode in 136 seconds?

[QUOTE=kar_bon;238112]A C102 factored with yafu in SIQS-mode in 136 seconds?[/QUOTE]

Nono, the relations were collected separately. A more accurate timeframe would be five hours, + 136 seconds for the [B]post-processing[/B]. (Took up about 1.4 GB of RAM) I forgot to include that. You should have been able to see that, as it did not print the amount of relations it collected.

Though, a 102-digit number in two minutes; I think that would enable me to break an RSA key. (Or maybe not.)

[QUOTE=3.14159;238072]How was it ridiculous?[/QUOTE]

Expecting a tool designed to do A to instead do B? :ermm:

[QUOTE=3.14159;238072]If you have nothing to add but smart-assed comments, just take a hike. Go kick some rocks. [B]Get lost.[/B][/QUOTE]

Good luck with that.

[QUOTE=3.14159;238114]Though, a 102-digit number in two minutes; I think that would enable me to break an RSA key. (Or maybe not.)[/QUOTE]

The current 'insecure; do not use' RSA key length is 1024 bits = 308 digits, about 17 million times harder.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse]Expecting a tool designed to do A to instead do B?
[/QUOTE]

You misunderstood what I meant.


[QUOTE]The current 'insecure; do not use' RSA key length is 1024 bits = 308 digits, about 17 million times harder.
[/QUOTE]

They might be viable for a couple of decades, IMO.

[QUOTE=3.14159;238140]You misunderstood what I meant.[/QUOTE]

Please, enlighten us.


[QUOTE=3.14159;238140]They might be viable for a couple of decades, IMO.[/QUOTE]

You would trust a 1024-bit RSA key?

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;238143]Please, enlighten us.




You would trust a 1024-bit RSA key?[/QUOTE]

The former: A power check would be necessary, in order to avoid wasted time.

The latter: Please show me a link which shows the factors of RSA1024.

[QUOTE=3.14159;238145]The former: A power check would be necessary, in order to avoid wasted time.
[/QUOTE]

No. It's your turn to check of powers first. ECM is designed to test in another way.

[QUOTE=kar_bon;238146]No. It's your turn to check of powers first. ECM is designed to test in another way.[/QUOTE]

Wait.. Isn't it supposed to be unable to factor p^n, where p is prime?

(Ex: 5808458716416796798459^5)

I'm going to work on sigma(71608085354600097239391307^4).